2017 (9) TMI 1278 - AT - Customs

Customs Inspectors' Appeals Allowed Due to Lack of Notice; Time Limit Upheld

Shri Bhaskar Chakraborty, Shri Atanu Sarkhel Versus Commr. of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by two Customs Inspectors against penalties imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were ... Penalty u/s 117 of CA, 1962 - service of notice - no notice u/s 155 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, was issued - Held that: - on the identical issue, the Tribunal in the case Suvasis Banerjee & Others [2016 (8) TMI 874 - CESTAT KOLKATA] has held that the protection under section 155(2) is applicable to all legal proceedings. Further, if protection to officers against proceedings in courts can be given, there is no reason why such a protection cannot be given to proceedings before quasi judicial authorities - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 without issuing a notice under Section 155(2) of the Act.Analysis:The case involved appeals filed by two Customs Inspectors against the imposition of penalties of Rs. 10,000 each under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were imposed in connection with a case of fraudulent exports and duty drawback claims. The appellants argued that no notice was issued to them under Section 155(2) of the Act, which they contended was a prerequisite for imposing penalties. The Tribunal examined the issue and referred to a similar case where penalties were disallowed due to the absence of the required notice. The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not address this issue in its decision, and cited precedents supporting the appellants' argument regarding the necessity of the notice under Section 155(2) for imposing penalties.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the appellants and the Revenue. It was observed that the Adjudicating Authority had dropped the proceedings based on two grounds: first, that the proceedings were time-barred under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, and second, that the actions of the respondents did not render the goods liable for confiscation under the Act, hence not attracting penalties under Section 114. The Revenue contended that Section 155 of the Act did not apply to adjudication proceedings, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the protection under this section extended to all legal proceedings, including quasi-judicial ones. The Tribunal cited relevant case law to support its interpretation and concluded that the proceedings against the appellants were time-barred as per Section 155(2), leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and the allowance of the appellants' appeals.In its decision, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limit specified in Section 155(2) of the Customs Act for initiating proceedings against officers. It noted that the protection provided under this section applied to adjudication proceedings as well, as established by previous judgments. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision to drop the proceedings due to the time limitation, without delving into the merits of the case or the alleged connivance of the respondents. The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed based on the grounds of limitation prescribed in Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, in line with the earlier decisions and the legal principles discussed in the case.